If you'll notice folks, Tree just gave a perfect example of how to hijack a thread and turn the discussion from the game at hand to his chosen agenda of Mike Brown sucking and Z needing to play. It truly was classic Tree.

Always follows the same map:

1) Find random comment that you can tie to your agenda laden bullshit in some absurd way. Here he took a point on three point shooting and bridged it to Z by declaring Z the second best 3 point shooter on the team, which may be the single most absurd point ever made.

2) Ramble on about nothing for a few paragraphs and throw some pointless numbers in there (see Z's rebounding stats, Z allegedly being a threat as a shooter even though he shoots like crap now and whatever he was rambling about Shaq was).

3) Say something so absurdly uninformed it makes peoples heads explode (see Z being the second best three point shooter on the team and that teams should use their entire regular season rotations in the playoffs).

4) Seal it by bridging Agenda 1 (Z) to Agenda 2 (MB) by thoughtlessly declaring that the rambling nonsense he threw up on the board proves that Z is what we need this series and that MB is a dolt for not playing him.

Now what was an analysis of the game is already five posts down the hole of dicussing what Joe Dirt wants to discuss. You'll also notice that every post Tree has made since his appearance (beyond crying about me) has contained said agenda. You can look forward to Tree making sure to follow this path to success in at least one randomly chosen thread a day after every loss, regardless of what the thread at hand is even about.

e0y2e3 wrote:If you'll notice folks, Tree just gave a perfect example of how to hijack a thread and turn the discussion from the game at hand to his chosen agenda of Mike Brown sucking and Z needing to play. It truly was classic Tree.

Always follows the same map:

1) Find random comment that you can tie to your agenda laden bullshit in some absurd way. Here he took a point on three point shooting and bridged it to Z by declaring Z the second best 3 point shooter on the team, which may be the single most absurd point ever made.

2) Ramble on about nothing for a few paragraphs and throw some pointless numbers in there (see Z's rebounding stats, Z allegedly being a threat as a shooter even though he shoots like crap now and whatever he was rambling about Shaq was).

3) Say something so absurdly uninformed it makes peoples heads explode (see Z being the second best three point shooter on the team and that teams should use their entire regular season rotations in the playoffs).

4) Seal it by bridging Agenda 1 (Z) to Agenda 2 (MB) by thoughtlessly declaring that the rambling nonsense he threw up on the board proves that Z is what we need this series and that MB is a dolt for not playing him.

Now what was an analysis of the game is already five posts down the hole of dicussing what Joe Dirt wants to discuss. You'll also notice that every post Tree has made since his appearance (beyond crying about me) has contained said agenda. You can look forward to Tree making sure to follow this path to success in at least one randomly chosen thread a day after every loss, regardless of what the thread at hand is even about.

peeker643 wrote:Rather lick an electrical socket or drop my balls in an old blender.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't read a word of either post. But when I saw one quoting the other it was like seeing an inverted crucifix or the head of man on the body of a burro.

And if this doesn't convince you to put some thought into your posts, nothing will.

I think the movie Billy Madison summarized it eloquently.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

Thanks, I'm working on it. I learned nobody likes detailed analysis around here. It's all stick and move. Second, do you realize 40% is above our season average, and for probably the last 12 years above any teams season average, even the Suns?

You got me. The Cavs shot 38.1% at home and 35.7% on the road in the regular season on 3-point shots. 40% is definitely too optimistic. Still, if they even hit 7-for-21, which is below their road average, the game comes down to the final shot.

It wasn't just the 3-pointers, of course. It was a lot of things, and they've all been mentioned. My point was that the Celtics did not score a hell of a lot of points despite Rondo's heroics, but the Cavs somehow lost 37 points of offense from Friday to Monday. If they can find a way to get half those points back I think they win even if Rondo does another Bird impersonation.

Pink? It isn't that we do not like detailed analysis. I just don't enjoy takes that suck, but use statistics, usually tortured, to prop it up as to be immune to harsh criticism. Follow that up with posts that are wayyyyyyyyyyyy to wordy, filled with little digs from a previous agenda, and I feel I have entered Pure Bore where people hang onto takes above and beyond reality.

Sure, if we shoot better at 3 we win. Fantastic, Brilliant! How many 3's did we have to hit again to win? If Rondo has a battle with the gout and cannot play we win. The take is weak. So the Cavaliers roll into game 5 hit 50% from 3 and lose, what then?

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:Pink? It isn't that we do not like detailed analysis. I just don't enjoy takes that suck, but use statistics, usually tortured, to prop it up as to be immune to harsh criticism. Follow that up with posts that are wayyyyyyyyyyyy to wordy, filled with little digs from a previous agenda, and I feel I have entered Pure Bore where people hang onto takes above and beyond reality.

Sure, if we shoot better at 3 we win. Fantastic, Brilliant! How many 3's did we have to hit again to win? If Rondo has a battle with the gout and cannot play we win. The take is weak. So the Cavaliers roll into game 5 hit 50% from 3 and lose, what then?

Orenthal wrote:Pink? It isn't that we do not like detailed analysis. I just don't enjoy takes that suck, but use statistics, usually tortured, to prop it up as to be immune to harsh criticism. Follow that up with posts that are wayyyyyyyyyyyy to wordy, filled with little digs from a previous agenda, and I feel I have entered Pure Bore where people hang onto takes above and beyond reality.

Sure, if we shoot better at 3 we win. Fantastic, Brilliant! How many 3's did we have to hit again to win? If Rondo has a battle with the gout and cannot play we win. The take is weak. So the Cavaliers roll into game 5 hit 50% from 3 and lose, what then?

Ur onto something.

How can we infect Rondo with gout by this evening?

Dude's gotta step out of that hotel room at some point, right? Set up an eagle's nest after we get the intel as to where the Boston bus boards for the game (with a secondary nest in Tower City in case the cagey bastard tries to hoof it to 'The Q').

Orenthal wrote:Pink? It isn't that we do not like detailed analysis. I just don't enjoy takes that suck, but use statistics, usually tortured, to prop it up as to be immune to harsh criticism. Follow that up with posts that are wayyyyyyyyyyyy to wordy, filled with little digs from a previous agenda, and I feel I have entered Pure Bore where people hang onto takes above and beyond reality.

Sure, if we shoot better at 3 we win. Fantastic, Brilliant! How many 3's did we have to hit again to win? If Rondo has a battle with the gout and cannot play we win. The take is weak. So the Cavaliers roll into game 5 hit 50% from 3 and lose, what then?

Orenthal, thank you for the constructive criticism and thanks for not lacing it with the kind of vicious personal attacks that are too common around here.

I will shorten my posts. I will continue to use statistics because they help make a point. Stats don't make a post "immune to harsh criticism." I get blasted with harsh criticism whether I use stats or not. That's fine. Bring it on. This board would be extremely boring if everyone just agreed with each other and congratulated each other on their brilliant insights. To me the most boring post is this: +1

To be honest, sometimes I only believe 50% in my take. But I put it out there to stimulate discussion. Like when I asked early in the season, "Are the Cavs better with Shaq on the bench?" I made that argument using some stats to support it. I know stats don't tell the entire story. I wasn't convinced myself that the Cavs were better when Shaq was on the bench. But I thought it was a legitimate question and might stimulate an interesting discussion.

Bad idea. People reacted as if I dumped scalding water in their laps. The general response was, "You're a moron who doesn't even watch the games."

As for the sucky take on the 3-point shots, sorry if I failed to articulate my point very well. There was a lot of discussion about how to stop Rondo, and my point was that all the Cavs needed to do was score 98 points to win, despite Rondo's Game for the Ages. Since they scored 124 two days earlier in the same building, they are more than capable. I'm not sure they can do much about Rondo, just like they weren't able to do much with Jalen Rose. But if they execute on offense they win.

Part of that involves not taking a lot of 3-pointers when they aren't falling. Missed 3-pointers result in many Celtic fast breaks off long rebounds. In Game 3 the Cavs put up 124 points while taking only 12 3-pointers. They lost twice when they shot 21 3-pointers. IMO, they need to be more selective and work harder to get high percentage 2-point shots.

Last thing - no more pink, I don't like it either. I was in a hurry and just clicked on a color at random. Man, you guys will react to anything. Anybody have an issue with red or blue?

This is unbelievable. You keep whining about people calling you retarded Pros yet you don't even believe 50% of what you post?

OJ nailed it, you are a child of the agenda ladden, all that matters is being correct current version of Pure Bore and that shit just doesn't fly here. To your credit instead of trumpeting a single agenda you just run around throwing shit at the wall and trying to see what sticks, however, instead of actually admitting when you are incorrect (and you throw a ton of runny ass shit at the wall that doesn't even stick for a second) you spin and morph your take into something else and defend whatever in the fuck you wrote over actually contributing to the board.

If you don't want most of the good posters here to think you are a fucking retard stop throwing shit at the wall, stop morphing your takes Tree style instead of just admitting you are wrong and stop posting stupid shit like "WELL WE MISSED A BUNCH OF THREES!!!" and acting like it is analysis.

We aren't hamster, AArd, mark et al here and this place isn't a giant pissing match about coaching and qbs where we spend 10K words spinning exactly why Mangini fucked Brady Quinn into a thread about running backs. Stop w/ the Pure Bore bullshit and people might actually read you and you might actually learn something (lord knows you have A LOT to learn because it really does seem like you have barely even watched this team in the LBJ era).

And this place isn't an arena where we all just want to practice our debating skills w/ moronic takes. Throwing shit at the wall just flat out isn't appreciated and is a waste of time. Especially w/ the way you brutally murder stats to do so and ignore facts.

Orenthal wrote:Pink? It isn't that we do not like detailed analysis. I just don't enjoy takes that suck, but use statistics, usually tortured, to prop it up as to be immune to harsh criticism. Follow that up with posts that are wayyyyyyyyyyyy to wordy, filled with little digs from a previous agenda, and I feel I have entered Pure Bore where people hang onto takes above and beyond reality.

Sure, if we shoot better at 3 we win. Fantastic, Brilliant! How many 3's did we have to hit again to win? If Rondo has a battle with the gout and cannot play we win. The take is weak. So the Cavaliers roll into game 5 hit 50% from 3 and lose, what then?

Ur onto something.

How can we infect Rondo with gout by this evening?

Isn't there a Giant Eagle selling ecoli recalled lettuce around here?

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Pros, you have a long history on these Cleveland boards, and you are not Tree so I will give you some leeway. Don't respond like that...

Wouldn't want anyone to stop using stats, just feel your use of them in the OP was trying to support a weak take. If you think we should continue taking lots of 3's, due to the high percentage we shot during the season, because it will loosen up the crowded paint, I can roll with that. Now you may have said that, but I cannot filter through all the...

"Orenthal, thank you for the constructive criticism and thanks for not lacing it with the kind of vicious personal attacks that are too common around here."

"To be honest, sometimes I only believe 50% in my take. But I put it out there to stimulate discussion. Like when I asked early in the season, "Are the Cavs better with Shaq on the bench?""

Again no need to rehash the Shaq take, we know where you stand on Shaq, like we know where I stand on JJ. People will jump all over a bad take, and if the person wants to go down with the ship, we will set fire to the lifeboats. The course of action is to either let go of the bad take, or convince us it isn't horrible... Don't call us out, in an attempt to shame us into not commenting.

Also don't know if you like Reghi, but his "Just Bring It" schtick is also a loser, at least with me, cannot stand the guy...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote: People will jump all over a bad take, and if the person wants to go down with the ship, we will set fire to the lifeboats. The course of action is to either let go of the bad take, or convince us it isn't horrible... Don't call us out, in an attempt to shame us into not commenting.

Dang it OJ, I wanted t o keep using peeker's take on the shitty back court for the whole week. Save this def stuff for another fortnight.

e0y2e3 wrote:This is unbelievable. You keep whining about people calling you retarded Pros yet you don't even believe 50% of what you post?

[color=#FF0040]Does this sound like whining? "I get blasted with harsh criticism whether I use stats or not. That's fine. Bring it on." [/color]

OJ nailed it, you are a child of the agenda ladden, all that matters is being correct current version of Pure Bore and that shit just doesn't fly here. To your credit instead of trumpeting a single agenda you just run around throwing shit at the wall and trying to see what sticks, however, instead of actually admitting when you are incorrect (and you throw a ton of runny ass shit at the wall that doesn't even stick for a second) you spin and morph your take into something else and defend whatever in the fuck you wrote over actually contributing to the board.

[color=#FF0040]Wait a minute, I'm a child of the "agenda laden, all that matters is being correct" version of PF and yet, to my credit, I'm not "trumpeting a single agenda"? Isn't that a completely contradictory statement?

As for "throwing shit at the wall", I believe that everything is not black or white; there's a lot of gray. Rather than come in with an arrogant, "This is my take and I'm right and anybody who disagrees is an idiot" approach, I ask questions. I try to lead the discussion into the gray areas. Are we better when Shaq is on the court or on the bench? I don't think it's cut and dried, it probably depends on the opponent and also who else is on the court with Shaq. You describe that question as "shit on the wall". Well, after watching the Cavs play and win for six weeks without Shaq, and watching them blow out the Celtics in February and March without him, maybe that question isn't exactly shit. Or do you still think it is?

If I suggested we put Z in to fire up some 3-pointers, then I could understand the hysteria. [/color]If you don't want most of the good posters here to think you are a fucking retard stop throwing shit at the wall, stop morphing your takes Tree style instead of just admitting you are wrong and stop posting stupid shit like "WELL WE MISSED A BUNCH OF THREES!!!" and acting like it is analysis.

[color=#FF0040]I'll admit I'm wrong when someone logically proves it, not because someone ignores the points I've made and just screams "retard" over and over. That seems to be your strong point.

As for the missed 3's, that's an observation, not analysis. You should learn the difference. My point was that rather than debate endlessly about who should guard Rondo (AP? Moon? LeBron? Boobie?), how about if we score 100 points, then it probably won't matter. [/color]

We aren't hamster, AArd, mark et al here and this place isn't a giant pissing match about coaching and qbs where we spend 10K words spinning exactly why Mangini fucked Brady Quinn into a thread about running backs. Stop w/ the Pure Bore bullshit and people might actually read you and you might actually learn something (lord knows you have A LOT to learn because it really does seem like you have barely even watched this team in the LBJ era).

[color=#FF0040]I don't tell anyone here what to post or what not to post, or what style of posting to avoid. I don't own this board. I've been asked to be more concise. I will do that. [/color]

And this place isn't an arena where we all just want to practice our debating skills w/ moronic takes. Throwing shit at the wall just flat out isn't appreciated and is a waste of time. Especially w/ the way you brutally murder stats to do so and ignore facts.

[color=#FF0040]If you're not interested in debate but would just rather have everyone agree with you, that's fine, just ignore my posts. I'm looking for people who want to discuss Cavs basketball and don't go high and right whenever somebody posts something they don't agree with. Maybe I'll find it here, maybe not.[/color]

Last edited by Prosecutor on Tue May 11, 2010 1:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You are still the same guy that tried to turn your shitty "The Cavs signed Powe w/out thinking they could get Jameson" rational for Powe not getting playoff minutes into "IF A BUS CRASHED POWE WOULD PLAY!!!"

That is changing what you wrote, squirmming and not manning up and admitting you threw shit at the wall.

It's all you do and why you are the single biggest toolbox here not named Tree.

I have civil discussion and admit I am wrong when I am wrong, problem is you are impossible to argue w/ because what you post is constantly morphing and you draw lines in the sand around bullshit like stats you are using in the completely incorrect manor. It's impossible to argue w/ you.

That is why you are a child of the agenda ladden BS that is Pure Bore, it's the argument style of choice in there. Protect your take even if that means shifting it at all costs, debate is futile. You posting about people ignore the points you make is highly histerical btw, because man... glass houses and shit.

I cannot remember you addressing and accepting a single point posted toward you here. Not once. All you do is change your argument a little bit.

And fuckhead, everyone here is interested in debate. The problem is assclowns that post things they don't even believe to try to inspire some bullshit Socratic method that is centered around things that are just not correct.

This board isn't here to be some exercise into existential debate nor is it here to be some mutilation of statistical analysis.

Try posting thing you actually believe and know to be true, otherwise everyone is going to continue to look at you as a fucking retard.

e0y2e3 wrote:JB, I was giving you another day on the back-court take before lighting you on fire, fwiw.

A draft response to you was already typed and rescinded.

Not sure I follow this.

Mo and DWest are a combined 5/29 in the two losses and AP is 5/14. Are we going to put that entire 10/43 on LBJ?

I'm in here somewhere saying I'll jump on the fact that 23 has to be accountable for not taking his life into his hands and hurling himself at the rim more often than not. Clearly he needs to do just that at whatever expense because they're not winning without that happening and I'm not being sarcastic.

But few of the looks that Mo, West and AP had in games 2 and 4 were contested. I think it's a huge part of the problem.

I maintain that when the Cavs signed Powe they did NOT know if they would be able to trade for a starting power forward during the season. Yes, they knew they were going to try. They didn't want to go into the playoffs with JJ, who was basically a rookie, starting. But trying is not the same as doing.

If the Wizards had not imploded with the Arenas gun incident, Jamison probably would not have been available. Shawn Marion was a target but the Suns wanted Hickson and Z for starters, and the Cavs would not give up that much for him.

There are no guarantees of anything before the season starts. Hickson could have easily had a reoccurance of the back injury. The Wizards could have realistically been in playoff contention all year. Powe was primarily signed for next season but he was also an insurance policy for this year in case a trade could not be worked out and the Cavs suffered a key injury or two.

You want me to admit that a decision was made eight months ago that Powe would not play this season no matter what? Sorry, I don't think that decision was ever made. In fact, Ferry was quoted as saying that he HOPED POWE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO PLAY THIS YEAR. He was obviously thinking about Powe as a role player or a guy who could give LeBron some rest in meaningless late season games, but he definitely wanted him available.

I'll admit I'm wrong about this when somebody shows me I'm wrong. So go ahead, show me. Or just keep screaming about what a troll I am, which is what you do best.

Galley Boys are slop on top of a so-so burger and a bun you coulde get from a Covneninet food mart generic pack. They the Antoine Joubert of burgers; soft, sloppy, oozing grease and cheap sauce and extremely overrated by a biased fan base. Proof that if you throw enough cheap sauce shit on a burger you still can't overcome the lame burger. -JB

You are the only person in America to think that an NBA player can be relied on to come back from microfracture surgery and ACL surgery (at once) to contribute in the playoffs.

You also sure are good at shaking off what Windhorst has reported regarding Powe.

And the fifteen players we were looking at brining in to stop him from having to play.

But hey, you never addressed these points before, why would you now.

Instead you somehow turned "POWE DOESN'T PLAY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY COULD GET JAMESON" into "WHEN THEY SIGNED POWE THERE IS NO WAY THEY 100% KNEW HE WASN'T GOING TO PLAY BECAUSE A COMPLETE DISASTER COULD HAPPEN AND HE COULD HAVE TO GET MINUTES"

Sure, those two things would be the same argument if not for the fact that they are 100% different statements. That is classic changing what you wrote to not admit you were wrong.

Even more embarrassing is being called out on it a half dozen times in the past month+ and not realizing. Kind of makes the whole "no one here wants to have an intelligent debate!" talking point even more embarrassing.

I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime

e0y2e3 wrote:You are the only person in America to think that an NBA player can be relied on to come back from microfracture surgery and ACL surgery (at once) to contribute in the playoffs.

You also sure are good at shaking off what Windhorst has reported regarding Powe.

And the fifteen players we were looking at brining in to stop him from having to play.

But hey, you never addressed these points before, why would you now.

Instead you somehow turned "POWE DOESN'T PLAY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY COULD GET JAMESON" into "WHEN THEY SIGNED POWE THERE IS NO WAY THEY 100% KNEW HE WASN'T GOING TO PLAY BECAUSE A COMPLETE DISASTER COULD HAPPEN AND HE COULD HAVE TO GET MINUTES"

Sure, those two things would be the same argument if not for the fact that they are 100% different statements. That is classic changing what you wrote to not admit you were wrong.

What I really said was:

1. Powe is not playing because there are better players at his position. I even named them.

2. The Cavs did not decide last summer that Powe would not play this year "no matter what." If they did, nobody reported it. I invite you to find a quote that contradicts this.

3. In fact, Powe played in 20 games this year, or almost one-quarter of the schedule, logging in excess of 220 minutes. The Cavs would never let him play if the medical staff had not cleared him, especially since they had the #1 seed wrapped up. He's available to play, but there are better players ahead of him.

I believe all of that is correct. You either don't, or you want to change what I said to suit your agenda.

I also said that the reason Ferry hoped Powe would be available before the end of the season, in my opinion, was because he wasn't sure he could trade for a Stoudemire or a Jamison, and there is always the possibility of injuries. I think that is correct, although I guess we would have to ask Danny in order to confirm it.

If someone convinces me I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it. But there has to be more than a lot of profane bluster because that stuff rolls off my back like water.